Next New Zealand Ambassador To The United States Of America Announced
'New Zealand's strategic partnership with the United States is one of our most important and long-standing relationships,' Mr Peters says.
'It is therefore essential that New Zealand's Ambassador to the United States has the necessary experience, judgement and influence to effectively represent our country in Washington DC and navigate the range of important and pressing issues that are vital to New Zealanders.
'Mr Seed is one of New Zealand's most senior and accomplished diplomats and is accordingly the right person for this vital role,' Mr Peters says.
Mr Seed served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade from 2019-2024 and has previously led New Zealand High Commissions in Canberra and Port Moresby. He will take up the role in January 2026.
Mr Seed succeeds Rosemary Banks, who will shortly complete her second term as Ambassador in Washington DC.
'Ms Banks has had a most distinguished diplomatic career, having led New Zealand missions in Paris, New York and Washington,' Mr Peters says.
'Twice Ms Banks has been asked by her Government to serve in Washington DC and we are enormously grateful to her that twice she answered that call to serve with distinction as New Zealand Ambassador to the United States.
'Ms Banks' long diplomatic experience and her elevated standing amongst her US counterparts, during such a challenging time in global affairs, has seen her contribute greatly to one of New Zealand's most critical bilateral relationships,' Mr Peters says.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Only one option on recognising Palestinian state
Recognising a supposed state which is split in two, with one bit run by the corrupt Fatah movement and the other by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hamas, surely meets those tests. Yet Peters going so public on the matter on Monday was still extraordinary. In a formal media statement, the Foreign Minister publicly acknowledged the Cabinet is divided over whether to recognise Palestine, with 'a broad range of strongly held views within our Government, Parliament and indeed New Zealand society'. 'This is not a straightforward, clear-cut issue,' Peters said, in what risks reading as a subtle dig at Luxon. Peters promised to approach the matter 'calmly, cautiously and judiciously' and to 'canvass this broad range of views before taking a proposal to Cabinet' which he would then present in New York late next month, when representing New Zealand at the UN's annual leaders' week. While Peters would be right to worry about US President Donald Trump's reaction to New Zealand recognising Palestine in an age of arbitrary tariffs, it is almost unthinkable that Cabinet would decide against it. Recognition of a Palestinian state is common ground between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, representing over two-thirds of MPs in Parliament, and of at least two of the smaller parties. It is also now the position of our only military ally and biggest economic partner, Australia, and the conditional stance of two other close Five Eyes friends, the UK and Canada. Strong objections can be made that the divided Palestinian Authority currently fails to meet the usual tests of statehood, including control of territory and effective government. Moreover, recognising Palestine as a state risks being seen not just as endorsing the corrupt West Bank regime of Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas – now into the 20th year of his first four-year term – but the evil Hamas organisation which has run Gaza for nearly as long. On the other hand, that may be too purist. Recognising Palestinian statehood is not about supporting Abbas or Hamas but a way of expressing opposition, not to Israel itself, but to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It isn't clear if Luxon meant his attack on Netanyahu this week – that he has 'gone way too far' and 'lost the plot' – to be so unequivocal that it attracted global media attention and was flattered by a tough response from Israel. 'When you don't really need an army because your most deadly enemy is a possum or a cat,' its deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel said tartly but not inaccurately, 'you wouldn't comprehend the challenges that come with facing Hamas – a jihadist death cult – only a few kilometres away from your country, that rape, execute, burn alive and starve your people.' Nevertheless, Luxon almost certainly spoke for a majority of the Cabinet, Parliament and New Zealanders. The only inaccurate part about his critique of Netanyahu is that he described his going too far and losing the plot as a recent development. In fact, Netanyahu – who has been on trial for corruption and fraud in the Jerusalem District Court since 2020 – has tragically been coming to mirror his enemies for much longer. Israel and the world would be better off had he retired from politics after he implemented his extraordinarily successful economic reforms 20 years ago. He has managed even to alienate Germany, whose leaders have described one of the purposes of the very existence of their country since 1949 as being to assure the security of Israel. Even it has felt forced to suspend all military exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza. With Luxon having made his attitude so clear – not just to New Zealanders but to the international community – Cabinet cannot choose other than to endorse his support for New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood. No matter how frustrating it can sometimes be for foreign ministers, foreign policy is ultimately the prerogative of the head of government. If, somehow, Luxon's views were not to prevail on such a matter, he would be rendered a complete lame duck around his own Cabinet table. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, actively deciding not to recognise Palestine in the current international environment would no longer be interpreted as a refusal to do anything that would legitimise Hamas but as an active endorsement of Netanyahu and some of the extremist parties that keep him in office and so potentially out of jail. New Zealand foreign and trade policy is strongest and most successful when it reflects a consensus between National and Labour. For all their faults, they are ultimately the grown-ups in the room. The antics of Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick or the more reflexively pro-Israel views of some within the Act Party should not influence the forthcoming decision. The Cabinet Manual demands that matters such as this be considered at that level, and not just resolved in a meeting between the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Foreign Minister. So be it. Cabinet government is a better system than taking decisions on a Prime Minister's couch. Still, with New Zealand's unfolding economic crisis needing to be tackled without distraction, it would be better if the decision could be taken more quickly than late September. And it should be the Prime Minister who makes the announcement in New Zealand and explains why the decision was made, not the Foreign Minister at the UN in New York. As leader of the country, not just a mere first among equals around the Cabinet table, Luxon needs to assert himself.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Winston Peters Blames ‘Outsiders' For Pacific Islands Forum Tensions
Article – RNZ The New Zealand Foreign Minister is attending the PIF Foriegn Ministers' Meeting in Suva, the final high-level meeting ahead of the Pacific leaders' summit next month., in Suva, Fiji New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters is blaming 'outsiders' for causing disagreements within the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). 'Outsiders are now telling us who we can have as guests. That's not the Pacific way and if you dissect every Pacific Islands population, they will not like that,' Peters, who is attending the PIF Foreign Ministers Meeting in Suva, said. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele has proposed that the Forum defer the annual dialogue partner meeting when leaders meet at the regional summit in Honiara. The move will essentially block at least twenty countries from participating at the key Pacific meeting in just over three weeks' time. It includes countries like the US and China, which will not participate until next year's summit in Palau. Solomon Islands and China have close diplomatic relations, signing a security agreement in 2022. The country has faced criticism for deciding to can the dialogue partners component after its plans to keep Taiwan out of the annual meeting. However, Manele has dismissed the idea that China-Taiwan tensions are to blame. Peters said the last split in 2021 was an 'internal squabble' of PIF nations' 'own making'. 'We hardly got that sorted out now, we've got outsiders causing a split and that's worse. 'We've got to make sure that every outsider comes here with respect for us, of us who are inside the organisation.' Pacific leaders disagree over the proposal to defer the dialogue and development partners. Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr, whose country has diplomatic ties with Taiwan, and Samoa's caretaker Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata'afa both back the Solomon Islands' decision. Fiame has made a U-turn after initially telling the ABC that she would boycott the meeting over this issue. Fiji's Prime Minister, on the other hand, has warned that such a move would threaten regional unity. Peters said the statement from Manele came out of left field. ''Well, yes, you might give us aid, but you can't come to our meeting as an observer', [but] this is not going be very helpful. It's our job to try and sort out this as fast as we can.' Peters said the most important thing was to ensure outsiders' priorities do not override the region's interests. 'Our job is to ensure that the collective beneficial interests of the Pacific Island countries in this forum prevail and are not pulled apart.'
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Royal Commission On COVID-19: They Are Not Even Good At Applying The Whitewash
The refusal of several former Labour Ministers to voluntarily appear before New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic response is a serious affront to transparency, accountability, and the public's right to know. The Royal Commission of Inquiry was established to examine and report on the decisions, policies, and actions taken in response to COVID-19, with a mandate to learn lessons for future emergencies. Under the Inquiries Act 2013, the Commission has clear procedural powers, including the authority to issue summonses that compel witnesses to attend and give evidence under oath. Royal Commission Powers Under the Inquiries Act 2013: Section 23 gives the Commission the power to summon any person to appear and give evidence under oath. It can require the production of any relevant documents, records, or data. Witnesses must answer questions; refusal can result in prosecution. Powers extend to individuals no longer in government or public service. Evidence forms part of the official historical account and recommendations for future emergencies. Given the gravity of the pandemic's social, economic, and health impacts, it is not acceptable for those who held primary responsibility to decline engagement. The public expects, and the law provides for the appearance of all key decision-makers who shaped the national response. The Commission's credibility depends on its willingness to compel the participation of those with the most direct knowledge and authority. New Zealanders endured unprecedented restrictions on movement, business closures, and extraordinary government intervention in daily life. These were extraordinary powers, and they demand extraordinary accountability. We call on the Royal Commission to exercise its full statutory authority and issue summonses without delay to all former Ministers and senior officials who held responsibility for COVID-19 decision-making. Failure to do so will leave critical gaps in the historical record, undermine the public trust the Commission is meant to uphold, and confirm that it is nothing more than a whitewash operation.
